CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. The Secretary,Government of Tamil Nadu,Prohibition and Excise DepartmentFort St.George,Chennai-9.2.District Magistrate &District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 5.07.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRAANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHIH.C.P.No.219/2007Saravanan.. PetitionerVs.1.The Secretary,Government of Tamil Nadu,Prohibition and Excise DepartmentFort St.George,Chennai-9.2.District Magistrate &District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District.. RespondentsFor Petitioner: Mr.O.S.Thilak PasumbadiyarFor Respondent: Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran, Addl.PP.PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forissue of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the secondRespondent pertaining to the order made in D.O.No.11/2007-C2 dated09.02.2007, detaining the detenu under Act 14/1982 as a Bootlegger, quashthe same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Balu and set himat liberty.O R D E RR.BANUMATHI, J.Challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition is to the detention orderdated 09.02.2007 whereby petitioner's brother Balu was branded as"Bootlegger" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerousactivities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video PiratesAct, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].2.The detenu had earlier come to adverse notice in four prohibitioncases, Thanipadi P.S. in Cr.Nos.928/2005, 98/2006, 644/2006 and 754/2006..The immediate cause for passing the detention order is the occurrence on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.01.2007 where the detenu is alleged to have sold illicit arrackallegedly containing poisonous substance. On the complaint lodged by thecomplainant Kesavel, case was registered in Cr.No.6/2007 on Thanipadi P.S.On being satisfied that if the detenu comes out on bail he will indulge infuture activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of publicorder, the impugned detention order was clamped on the detenu.3.Even though several contentions were raised and argued as well, thelearned Counsel for the petitioner mainly focussed attention on non-furnishing of certain documents requested by the detenu. Case of thedetenu is that he was taken to police station on 08.01.2007 and he waskept in illegal custody and the ground case is shown to have taken placeon 10.01.2007 and arrest having been shown on that date and the detenu wasalso produced in Court in connection with Cr.No.6/2007. The learnedCounsel for the petitioner mainly contended that if the detenu had been incontinued illegal custody from 08.01.2007, the detenu could not have beeninvolved in the ground case.4.In that view of the matter, the counsel for the detenu has alsosent representation dated 14.02.2007 to the Detaining Authority asking forthe records in the police station viz., Para Register, Food DistributionRegister and Prisoner's Search Register. In the said representation,specific plea was taken that the detenu was illegally detained from08.01.2007 and remanded on 10.01.2007 showing formal arrest inCr.No.6/2007. Though specific plea was taken and request for supply ofdocuments was made, Government had rejected the representation by itsMemorandum dated 02.03.2007 stating that the documents on which DetainingAuthority had relied upon have already been furnished to the detenu. Nonew document had been furnished to the detenu. What was asked for were newdocuments which were not found in the booklet furnished to the detenu.5.Case of detenu is that he was taken to illegal custody on08.01.2007 and formal arrest had been shown on 10.01.2007 and had he beenin continued custody from 08.01.2007, he could not have been involved inCr.No.6/2007. The detenu had asked for Para Register, Food DistributionRegister and Prisoner's Search Register to substantiate his defence.Though such plea was reflected in the representation, we are of the viewthat representation was mechanically rejected, by simply stating that thedocuments were already furnished to the detenu.6.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the detenuhad not made any complaint at the time when he was produced for remandbefore the Judicial Magistrate and therefore, it was not possible that thedetenu was in the illegal custody of the police from 08.01.2007 to10.01.2007. Drawing our attention to the representation sent by thecounsel for the detenu, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has furthersubmitted that this representation has been made not by the detenu but byhis counsel. In our opinion, none of the contentions merit acceptance. Itmay that the detenu has not made any statement before the JudicialMagistrate complaining about his illegal custody from 08.01.2007 to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.01.2007. When detenu had taken a definite plea that he was in illegalcustody from 08.01.2007, those documents which he sought for are relevantfor putting forth an effective representation. When such request forsupply of documents enabling the detenu to putforth effectiverepresentation was made, the Detaining Authority and Government areexpected to furnish those documents.7.Law is now well settled that where a document is a relied upondocument in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority is requiredto furnish copy of such relied upon document to the detenu an the order ofdetention becomes invalid, if such document is not furnished. (See 1999SCC (Crl) 231 (POWANAMMAL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS). Where adocument is not relied upon document, but merely referred to, non-supplyof such document does not have the ipso facto effect of making the orderof detention vulnerable. However, if the detenu request for supply ofsuch documents, which have been referred to, ordinarily such documents areto be supplied and at any rate such request should not be rejectedmechanically. Similarly, where a document is neither relied upon norreferred to and yet the detenu makes a representation for supply of suchdocument, such request should not be mechanically rejected unless on theface of it such a document is entirely irrelevant from the point of viewof making representation.8.Even if the document is not relevant for the purpose of detention,but if the detenu considers it relevant for the purpose of his defence andasks for the same, it has to be supplied to him. In this case, detenu hasasked for Para Register, Food Distribution Register and Prisoner's SearchRegister. But his representation was mechanically rejected by theGovernment and the detention order is liable to be quashed. In HCPNo.1844/1999, a Division Bench of this Court has quashed the detentionorder on the same ground of non-furnishing of Lock up Register, FoodDistribution Register and Prisoner's Register where the detenu has taken aspecific plea that he was in illegal custody. In such view of clearposition, we find that the detention order is liable to be quashed.9.Therefore, the detention order is set aside and this petition isallowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless heis required in connection with any other case.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrartar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Secretary,Prohibition and Excise DepartmentFort St.George, Chennai-9.2.District Magistrate & District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras4. The Superintendent,Central Prison, Vellore.5. The Joint Secretary to Government,Public (Law and Order)Fort St.George, Chennai -9.1 cc To Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiar, Advocate, SR.40303. H.C.P.No.219/2007 TEJ(CO)RVL 12.07.2007